Vulnerability

[C T]

I dunno, My impression was that his task was to show that the physical and spiritual obstacles presented to men were surmountable. So .. I suppose you could reasonably look at that tradition in the way you are. Good answer. So.... are we talking about spiritual woundability or being physically weak? I dont know of any tradition where the idea is to become physically weaker, ,, so.. though your answer is great, it sidesteps perhaps , whether the goal is to remain vulnerable spiritually , or to be transformed to perhaps be beyond that ..or something.

Ascetics (i have met a few and read of a few more) do not set out to become physically weaker. Most of those who are authentically and exceptionally austere have not much care for the physical body anyhow. And yet they seemed well looked after by both the public and benefactors. The sadhus in India and some of the yogins of the Himalayan regions are prime examples of those who have not a care or concern for the physical body, and yet, the authentic ones conduct themselves in a manner as if they have tasted something far richer than what this physical plane can offer, and have therefore abandoned the norms you and I see as important. They simply scoff and carry on, blissfully, on their merry way. 

[Stosh]

Ok, and what about that other thing,, the spiritual vulnerability of the end result?

The scoffing,, thats feeling vulnerable?

Ive had to consider this a bit, You feel that in the ascetic tradition, vulnerability is a virtue, because the idea is that if you put yourself through Enough ! self imposed misery, youll abandon your earthly concerns and be happier in the long run... rendering one invulnerable by overdose. However, I dont see how this promotes anything positive for the general welfare, though ,indeed that might not be of significance... I thought you were Buddhist, and agreed with the middle way, promoted by Gautama, that said that the ascetic plan was misguided.

Why should a Buddhist consider ones physical vulnerability a virtue , if thats a tenet of a faith, your own faith considers misguided?

Edited November 26, 2016 by Stosh

[3bob]

Jesus is absolutely invulnerable to any form or intensity of spiritual attack from any realm, is he vulnerable so to speak in having compassionate feelings for those suffering - yes

[C T]

Ok, and what about that other thing,, the spiritual vulnerability of the end result?

The scoffing,, thats feeling vulnerable?

Ive had to consider this a bit, You feel that in the ascetic tradition, vulnerability is a virtue, because the idea is that if you put yourself through Enough ! self imposed misery, youll abandon your earthly concerns and be happier in the long run... rendering one invulnerable by overdose. However, I dont see how this promotes anything positive for the general welfare, though ,indeed that might not be of significance... I thought you were Buddhist, and agreed with the middle way, promoted by Gautama, that said that the ascetic plan was misguided.

Why should a Buddhist consider ones physical vulnerability a virtue , if thats a tenet of a faith, your own faith considers misguided?

Its not certain that we have actually come to a mutual agreement as to how this term is understood under the context of a spiritual occurrence, and not, as it were, a desirable virtue, which seems to me to be what you are implying, and please correct me if this is not the case.

 

I am Buddhist, and as one, do at times try feebly to practice the middle path, with the aim of one day setting foot on the other shore, metaphorically speaking of course, like what some of the above-mentioned ascetics (in sanskrit: Sramana/Shramana) have attained. A large aspect of the practice involves the cultivation of the various virtues associated with the tradition, one among many others is humility. I am sure this mode of conduct is shared by countless other Buddhists, but in truth, none of these virtues, simply by the merit of their cultivation, will suffice in getting one to the other shore, although, if done with enough focus and discipline, among other qualities, paves the way for a readiness to cross that ever-mysterious and mystical river. 

 

So here we are, on this side (apparently), being encouraged and encouraging ourselves to generate a stable resolve to follow the Buddha's great example - while this is all well and good, until that moment of actual arrival on the other shore, we have to be realistic and acknowledge that while we try to groom ourselves in light of the perfect qualities of an enlightened being, it is still quite removed from being actually enlightened. It is a bit like imaging being part of a grand feast, or being a sage or whatever else we want to be, and not actually being one. 

 

As such, it will happen that enlightenment will elude the majority of those who faithfully abide by the tenets and teachings set out in this tradition, but this should not in any way discourage the follower/practitioner, because, as mentioned above, we do it because it is simply and profoundly a process of readying oneself, or meriting oneself for the one moment where it all comes together, befittingly, if not in this life, then the next, and so on. 

 

It is that scary/wondrous/profound moment where all the pieces come together that vulnerability becomes choiceless. It is akin to a permanent life-changing experience (sometimes like an NDE, for example) although i think enlightenment is that, and much more. NDE can happen to anyone, regardless. Im sure we have all read or heard of terrible people, or non-cultivators, or simply regular folks, whose lives were instantly transformed by it - in some cases, that transformation is permanent, in some others, a temporal one. But one thing is certain, while in that transitory state, those who find themselves at that crossroad are utterly vulnerable, not by choice but by default. At that point, whether one is humble or obnoxious, kind or cruel, a daobum or not, makes not an ounce of difference. It also happens to a few who experience what is known as sudden enlightenment. In Zen they call it 'satori'. A person who becomes enlightened in a flash. When that occurs, one is there and then vulnerable to the core, and probably becomes humbled by it thereafter (although not always the case, as is well documented). 

 

I reckon this would be one example of how i would like to convey the usage of the term 'vulnerability' in the general context of this thread, and your query specifically. 

[Stosh]

Jesus is absolutely invulnerable to any form or intensity of spiritual attack from any realm, is he vulnerable so to speak in having compassionate feelings for those suffering - yes

If youre a Christian , Ill just leaving that standing as a statement of that faiths belief. Sorry, I forget who is what denomination.

[Stosh]

Forgive my bluntness CT, ,, One can, as a Buddhist , be highly arrogant, greedy cruel vulnerable and egotistic , and still be on the path to enlightenment, right up to , and potentially after ,the transformative event and yet still fall back into unenlightenment? I thought yall had things you considered virtues which led to enlightenment.. which was .. well, actually transformative to a state one would consider virtuous. Im assuming you do understand why someone else would consider that to be self contradicting ,right?

[3bob]

Concerning question on denomination: to me there is a great and grand mind and all of us beings with karma and ego are in that sphere (so to speak) regardless of the particular niche or name that we adhere to or identify with - within it...

 

but true freedom is greater than even attaining complete mental freedom within all the niches of the mind sphere..., and where or what that is not reachable by mind - for mind and it's various identities or attempts to mentally negate identities must be left behind to realize That which is not bound by the law of the sphere -  being a "That" which has been pointed to with the concept of Atman as found in the Upanishads - and or by whatever or wherever else a parallel pointer to same might be found... (as alluded to)

 

Om

Edited November 26, 2016 by 3bob

[Stosh]

I think were supposed to be speaking about conventional vulnerability , not that this bardo thing, which I had to look up isnt  interesting ,, it is  but according to the opening statement  which was to set our stage .. Im thinking its not central , and I dont know what to do with it even if it was So I cant really respond to it.

 

“Vulnerability is not weakness, and the uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure we face every day are not optional. Our only choice is a question of engagement. Our willingness to own and engage with our vulnerability determines the depth of our courage and the clarity of our purpose; the level to which we protect ourselves from being vulnerable is a measure of our fear and disconnection.”

 

- Brené Brown

 

This insight strikes at a core purpose of my personal cultivation. Learning wise engagement with my many vulnerabilities is an ongoing learning process for me.  I strengthen myself with the many Daoist and other practices I’ve learnt along the way – but that strength has the danger of becoming a shield behind which I hide my vulnerabilities. For me, it’s all about learning to wisely use that strength to, little by little, allow my vulnerabilities. It’s a slow process because my most sensitive vulnerabilities are so deeply hidden within me that I’m not even aware of them. I can only glimpse them by, for instance, noting how I react to situations and people; to that great teacher called life experience. Strong emotional reactions show me I’m near to becoming aware of some hidden vulnerability

[centertime]

My current view that we may be immortal with vulnerability right now... but for self defense reasons we forget that we may be lost, forgotten that we lost ourselves. We may be vulnerable due to past violent events.

Edited November 28, 2016 by centertime